> This makes the test fail against 2.0.50, but it's just a lack-of-feature
> right, so OK if I half-revert this?
the last time I asked about this, the consensus was that the perl-framework
is expected to be for developer use only, expected to run (and in some cases
compile) successfully only on current CVS 1.3/2.0/2.1.
IIRC there are some things that will definitely fail in older httpd releases
(some mod_include stuff comes to mind) and we haven't coded around
have_min_apache_version for exactly this reason.
>
> --- t/apache/errordoc.t 12 Jul 2004 17:03:49 -0000 1.3
> +++ t/apache/errordoc.t 16 Jul 2004 12:16:25 -0000
> @@ -59,7 +59,8 @@
> '/redefine/notfound.html code');
>
> # 1.3 requires quotes for hard-coded messages
> - my $expected = have_apache(2) ? qr/Not Found/ :
> + my $expected = have_min_apache_version('2.0.51') ? qr/Not Found/ :
> + have_apache(2) ? 'default' :
> qr/Additionally, a 500/;
>
> ok t_cmp($content,
I'm not necessarily against this, except that this isn't the only test that
will fail if you use something less than cvs.
so, perhaps now is a good time to reevaluate the prior consensus. is the
perl-framework a developer tool or should we be accounting for httpd changes
between releases?
I just ran against 2.0.46 (which is the oldest httpd the mod_perl currently
supports, so I keep one laying around :) and the only failures are from
errordoc.t and include.t. while errordoc.t is easy enough to fix with your
patch, mod_include may be a bit more difficult, since IIRC the changes
spanned several httpd releases.
--Geoff
